Establishment liberals aren’t communists. They don’t want communism for the territories they control. The territories they control have the divine blessing from God of a class and caste of people who are able to rule gently, but firmly and correctly. An elite, to be sure, but an elite of divine favor.

This elite rules over what is sometimes called the “Anglosphere”, and the countries in Western Europe conquered by the Anglosphere. However, this leaves a lot of the globe uncovered- Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Asia has mostly never been ruled by the Anglosphere; except for India and Pakistan, which were not successfully converted into Whig democracies. China, of course, they regard as horribly abused in the name of British commercial interests. Africa was the site of many European colonies, but only for abuse and exploitation, not for the implantation and cultivation of Victorian values. Eastern Europe was ruled by a primitive landed elite, and Latin America had the even worse misfortune of being colonized by Catholic Spain or Portugal.

Our Anglo-Protestant elite regards rule by them as the best option for anyone; Cecil Rhodes said to be born an Englishman was to win the first prize of life, and I’m sure he regarded rule by an Englishman as close second. Being English, and Protestant, however also means being practical. Not every nation can have the blessing of this rule. What of the others? For them, what is to be done?

As highly as the English Protestant, or Whig, or “super Protestant” elite thinks of itself, it regards all other elites as deeply evil, corrupt, illegitimate and deserving of death. Traditionally the elites of different countries have not cared for each other, but have taken the attitude of “we will leave each other alone, and maybe tacitly assist each other if necessary, because while we each believe ourselves superior and want to rule everything ourselves, the rule of non-elites would be worse.” The Whigs have not taken this view. Their strategy has been to overthrow the elites of other countries, usually in the name of democracy. Nationalist democracy was the liberal fashion up to and through World War I and the League of Nations era.

Around this time though the preferred method of overthrowing and destroying foreign elites became communism. Again, the Whigs saw no need for communism where they, or people closely allied with them, ruled; but in other places, Catholic, Orthodox, Moslem, Buddhist, or pagan places, communism was just the thing to rip control from outdated and illegitimate elites, eliminate and overhaul feudal and medieval economic systems, and erase old religions and superstitions.

And the incredible violence and destruction that would accompany this? Dickens was no communist; he would not even be considered much of a liberal today. Orwell pointed out that the only real change Dickens wanted was that people would be nicer to each other. Christianity doesn’t seem to play much role in his books, but he would have been at least nominally a Victorian Christian, which is to say a Social Gospel, save the world by getting involved type. Christianity prohibits hate and revenge; but to Dickens the hate and revenge of the French Revolution was just a sort of an ill wind, whipped up by the oppression of the ruling class, that had to blow through, clean things up, and make the way for change later.

For Dickens, the French aristocracy and their functionaries deserved to be murdered. They weren’t the paternalistic, occasionally charitable rulers of England, so they were evil and illegitimate. Liberals extend this attitude everywhere in the world to other political classes. They are bad, and they need to go; social democracy or democratic socialism would be desirable, but if due to social conditions that isn’t going to happen, then communist revolution and mass murder of the upper and middle classes is the next best option to eliminate the old system.

They extend this attitude even to domestic affairs, when it involves their political opponents. For liberals the explosion of black crime in the 50’s and 60’s was a legitimate response to racial oppression- not by upper-class whites, who actually ran things, but by working-class whites, who were not interested in surrendering their meager prerogatives for the benefit of blacks. The black invasion of working-class white neighborhoods and the murder, rape, and robbery of working-class whites was legitimate payback- the natural birth of oppression- and was simply to be endured and accepted by the victims.

For liberals violence- by certain people against certain people- is a completely morally acceptable way of reaching liberal goals. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. As the victim of black crime, you are only a statistic.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.

2 Responses to The Evil Heart of Liberalism

Very good point. The domestic part rings true recalling how Aneurin Bevan used the call the Conservatives “lower than vermin”. I find amusing how fine and nice the Whigs thought themselves. I doubt their own servants thought of their masters that way.

Also how would jews fit in that theory. They invented communism after all.

RE: Bevan on Conservatives. Western Conservatives sold out to liberalism before the fight even started. As Ayn Rand like to note, the moral worldview of most Conservatives is only marginally different from that of liberals; both are inconsistent, rationalizing and self-serving nonsense built to befuddle a mass of idiots into being pawns in their social status games. The American Conservative is an excellent example, their infatuation with Constitutions and other idiot Enlightenment fantasies goes to show you how useless modern Conservatives are, because they accept the worldview of their ‘opponents’. Randroids, Nietzscheans, Stirnerites and hardcore reactionaries should generally agree that conservatives ARE lower than vermin. Better a barbarian than a collaborator. Conan, at least, has some personal integrity and vitality. Some 63 year old jerkoff trying to sell me a false bill of goods about ‘rights’ and how America is a ‘republic, not a democracy’ is a pathetic shell for a dead fantasy.